The irony in the Baha'i faith

[Jim]

Well one can harbor any thoughts internally and nobody is going to play mind reader but if a Baha'i publicly pronounces atheism he will be counseled and if he continues he will be excluded from official membership.

I’ve publicly pronounced my atheism more than once in Internet discussions. The first time was more than two years ago. I’ve said publicly and repeatedly that I’m not sure that women will never be eligible for membership on the House of Justice, and that I’m not sure that there will never be another Guardian. I came out as queer on Facebook. I’ve publicly denounced Baha’is worshiping the House of Justice. I’ve said publicly that the there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing publicly with the House of Justice. For years I flaunted my friendship with some people who were denouncing the House of Justice. I’ve never been counseled against doing any of that, by any institutions.

 

[George-ananda]

I’ve publicly pronounced my atheism more than once in Internet discussions. The first time was more that two years ago. I’ve said publicly and repeatedly that I’m not sure that women will never be eligible for membership on the House of Justice, and that I’m not sure that there will never be another Guardian. I came out as queer on Facebook. I’ve publicly denounced Baha’is worshiping the House of Justice. I’ve said publicly that the there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing publicly with the House of Justice. For years I flaunted my friendship with some people who were denouncing the House of Justice. I’ve never been counseled against doing any of that, by any institutions.

I will say that as the future Baha'i administration is envisioned to unfold that if these issues were brought to the attention of your Local Spiritual Assembly you would be counseled as to your transgressions from the Baha'i teachings and if you are not intent on mending your ways your membership would be revoked.

As the future Baha'i administration is close to inactive today I am not surprised that you are not contacted on any of these issues.​

 

[Dawnofhope]

(for informational purposes here: I have served on the Local Spiritual Assembly (LSA) of probably the largest Baha'i community in my state)

The way I understood things to work is that if an issue is brought to the attention of the LSA such as a member publicly speaking for and promoting atheism, the LSA is to council the person and inform them that this is not acceptable. If the person does not agree to mend their ways or continues with the same behavior the LSA should take action to remove their membership and other members are instructed to not associate with that member.

I agree that the LSA is unlikely to convince an atheist to become a theist and in that case the person should be removed from membership. It also seems odd to me that the removed member would ever still want to be an active member.

The Assembly your were on sounds extreme and disturbing. I don’t for a moment doubt that what you say is true but its something my Assembly would never do. A few years back a known Baha’i who actively teaches was using drugs and intoxicated in public. We took action and counselled him from a perspective of concern. He thanked us for our concern and changed his behaviour. He keeps coming to feast. We didn’t expel him, shun him or even remove his voting rights. He comes to the attention of our institutions from time to time but there will always be Baha’i whose behaviour fall way short of what’s expected. We’re all human.

A friend of mine who became a Baha’i in the late 70s once told me there’s a lot less BS in the Baha’i community these days.

Here’s what the Universal House of Justice has to say:

The aim of any Spiritual Assembly should be to develop a warm and loving relationship with the believers in its community, so that it can most effectively nurture and encourage them in the acquisition of a deeper understanding of the teachings, and can assist them to follow the Baha’i principles in their personal conduct. The Assembly should aspire to being regarded by the members of the community as a loving parent, wise in its understanding of the varying degrees of maturity of those entrusted to its care, compassionate in dealing with the problems which arise as a result of any shortcomings, ever prepared to guide them to the correct path, and very patient as they strive to effect the necessary changes in their behavior. Such an approach is far removed from the harshly judgmental and punitive approach which so often characterizes the administration of law in the wider society. The Baha’i application of justice, firmly rooted in spiritual principle and animated by the desire to foster the spiritual development of the members of the community, will increasingly be seen as a distinctive and highly attractive feature of the Revelation of Bahaullah. – The Universal House of Justice, to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of Australia.

The Baha'i Administrative Order Explained

I believe your approach is the best one in this case HOWEVER it is not the approach supported by the Baha'i Faith which would call for the members not to associate with this person.

Well you present the attitudes you and I of the western liberal world think are best. Let's call your preferred approach Baha'i 2.0.

When push comes to shove the 1.0 Baha'is and the 2.0 Baha'is can not co-exist. The 2.0 Baha'is can certainly accept the 1.0 Baha'is but not vice versa. The philosophy of the organizational structure is to guard against schisms and produce a singular united Baha'i Faith. The strict readings of the Faith's core sources particularly the Guardian's do support Baha'i 1.0 if push comes to shove. As the Baha'i 1.0 strength in the western world is weak, the conflict is not much realized today but the hope for further growth of both factions together doesn't seem feasible.

There’s only one Baha’i Faith though. Baha’i 1.0 and Baha’i 2.0 have learnt not only to tolerate each other but to love one another. I think a lot has changed since you were a Baha’i. Then again I’ve had my battles with both Baha’i 1.0 and 2.0. I hear you.

 

[George-ananda]

The Assembly your were on sounds extreme and disturbing. I don’t for a moment doubt that what you say is true but its something my Assembly wouldn’t do.

To clarify, I was explaining how Local Spiritual Assemblies are intended to be run by the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice. I am not saying my assembly was very harsh to say the least.

​

A known Baha’i who actively teaches is using drugs and being intoxicated in public. We took action then and counselled him from a perspective of concern. He thanked us for his concern and changed his behaviour. He keeps coming to feast. We didn’t expel him, shun him or even remove his voting rights. He comes to the attention of our institutions from time to time but there will always be Baha’i whose behaviour fall way short of what’s expected.

If the person is intending to mend their ways then that is one thing and they would not be removed. That would not cause removal. If the person was unapologetic and planned to continue in their ways then expulsion would occur.

A friend of mine who became a Baha’i in the late 70s once told me there’s a lot less BS in the Baha’i community these days.

Here’s what the Universal House of Justice has to say:

The aim of any Spiritual Assembly should be to develop a warm and loving relationship with the believers in its community, so that it can most effectively nurture and encourage them in the acquisition of a deeper understanding of the teachings, and can assist them to follow the Baha’i principles in their personal conduct. The Assembly should aspire to being regarded by the members of the community as a loving parent, wise in its understanding of the varying degrees of maturity of those entrusted to its care, compassionate in dealing with the problems which arise as a result of any shortcomings, ever prepared to guide them to the correct path, and very patient as they strive to effect the necessary changes in their behavior. Such an approach is far removed from the harshly judgmental and punitive approach which so often characterizes the administration of law in the wider society. The Baha’i application of justice, firmly rooted in spiritual principle and animated by the desire to foster the spiritual development of the members of the community, will increasingly be seen as a distinctive and highly attractive feature of the Revelation of Bahaullah. – The Universal House of Justice, to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of Australia.

The Baha'i Administrative Order Explained

That does not really contradict any of the things I said. People are encouraged to change errors with love.

There’s only one Baha’i Faith though. Baha’i 1.0 and Baha’i 2.0 have learnt not only to tolerate each other but to love one another. I think a lot has changed since you were a Baha’i. Then again I’ve had my battles with both Baha’i 1.0 and 2.0. I hear you.

My point is that the two can not co-exist. For example, a 2.0 Baha'i in a homosexual marriage will not be accepted by the UHJ as acceptable for continued membership.

 

[Dawnofhope]

To clarify, I was explaining how Local Spiritual Assemblies are intended to be run by the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice. I am not saying my assembly was very harsh to say the least.

Pleased to hear your Assembly wasn’t that extreme.

I recall in the writings how the future can only be faintly imagined and it will take a full one hundred years before the implications of Abdul-Baha’s Will and Testament can be realised. I’m paraphrasing badly but we can’t really know for certain. One of our critics here loves to portray a future Baha’i dystopia where non-Baha’is will have no rights. There’s no evidence to support that really but its easy to project onto the writings what can only be worked out in practice.

If the person is intending to mend their ways then that is one thing and they would not be removed. That would not cause removal. If the person was unapologetic and planned to continue in their ways then expulsion would occur.

They may have their voting rights removed but wouldn’t be expelled.

That does not really contradict any of the things I said. People are encouraged to change errors with love.

That’s the most important aspect is love.

My point is that the two can not co-exist. For example, a 2.0 Baha'i in a homosexual marriage will not be accepted by the UHJ as acceptable for continued membership.

A cohabiting Baha’i homosexual couple living together who refused to seperate would lose their voting rights.

The point with @Jim is that’s he’s simply not extreme enough to have his voting rights or membership removed. No mature Baha’i institution would consider it, not for a moment.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Hindu thing, I'm not quite sure where you're coming from.

@Aupmanyav and, say, @Vinayaka (If I got his name right), may have different points of view. That doesn't exclude the common thread-let's say god-Hinduism has regardless if the two believe or disbelieve in that common thread.

The perspectives of god doesn't mean it doesn't exist (or exist). Aup has a lot of respect and knowledge for what other Hindus know about the god they believe exists. It's not (in my opinion) like two catholics come to church one catholic believes the Eucharist is symbolism and the other Catholic literal, so no one can explain the core of the catholic faith because both parties don't share the same beliefs. It's still Catholic-Roman, Greek, Othorodox, etc-there are still basic tenants that they (and christianity) do follow to make them "christian" not Bahai and not Pagan for that matter.

Although I have produced a list of beliefs for Hinduism, there are no foundational beliefs for Hinduism.

God is a foundational belief for Hinduism. Whether a person believes in god or not, it's still acknowledge that is part of the Hindu faith whether a person believes it exists or not.

Also, now that I think of it. Maybe Aup can clear this up. I think he's saying he doesn't believe in the incarnations. He does continuously talk about the nature of "god" or consciousness and distinctively challenges the circular and linear worldview of both eastern and abrahamic faiths. Whether he calls it god or not, is his view but that doesn't exclude that that belief (for lack of better words) is a huge core of Hindu faith and what all other parts of it are based on.

Unless you're saying because Hindus are eclectic, then it's okay for Bahai to have Hindus beliefs? I'm not following your line of thinking.

So what is the difference between an atheist saying Genesis in the Bible is pure myth and a young earth Christian claiming the Bible is literally true?

I'm not following.

There is no difference. The individual people don't define the faith. If that be the case, anyone can take anything from any religion and call it their religion.

Fourth time you have asked. The problem is God for Baha'is is an Unknowable Essence and you'll have diverse answers from Hindus depending on who you ask.

The question was if Hindus believe in the same god Bahais do, can you explain the nature of that god.

What do you mean by Essence?

Those two words doesn't click but bahai says that all these religions have the same essence. If there is no working definition of it, what do you guys believe?

Everything Bahaullah says is based on god or this unknownable essence. So, if he were alive, I'd ask him the same question.

Oh. I did read these sites. Years ago, when I first read it I was looking at the Bahai faith curiously. I remembered saying I didn't care for the eclectic part (this was near fifteen years ago) and didn't believe in god, so I went to the next website. I'm still not sure what god is to any of the faiths; but saying it can't be known really doesn't clear it up the answer.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@adrian009

You would literally have to break down the metaphysics of the definition of god. I haven't heard of the Islam definition before. They do have a list of traits ascribed to it but that's like putting adjectives to an undefined noun.

How do you talk about the existence and role of something without a working definition of what that something is (and even more, to tell other people who have no clue about the jargon to make sense of the meaning behind it)?

'nother thread perhaps. I probably have it somewhere up in here gathering dust but if you have something simple than that would be kind.

 

[George-ananda]

Pleased to hear your Assembly wasn’t that extreme.

I recall in the writings how the future can only be faintly imagined and it will take a full one hundred years before the implications of Abdul-Baha’s Will and Testament can be realised. I’m paraphrasing badly but we can’t really know for certain. One of our critics here loves to portray a future Baha’i dystopia where non-Baha’is will have no rights. There’s no evidence to support that really but its easy to project onto the writings what can only be worked out in practice.



They may have their voting rights removed but wouldn’t be expelled.



That’s the most important aspect is love.



A cohabiting Baha’i homosexual couple living together who refused to seperate would lose their voting rights.

The point with @Jim is that’s he’s simply not extreme enough to have his voting rights or membership removed. No mature Baha’i institution would consider it, not for a moment.

Well, I’ll summarize and say that the the official source writings and UHJ has to maintain 1.0. Too much of its fundamental sources say so . That said I certainly don’t think their prophetic vision of the future will ever come to pass so the 1.0’s will probably never be very important.

I do think there was some genuine spiritually inspired things in the Faith but it is not all there either.

But I like your approach and think you are growing spiritually whatever is the ultimate story of the Baha’i Faith.

 

[Jim]

I will say that as the future Baha'i administration is envisioned to unfold that if these issues were brought to the attention of your Local Spiritual Assembly you would be counseled as to your transgressions from the Baha'i teachings and if you are not intent on mending your ways your membership would be revoked.

As the future Baha'i administration is close to inactive today I am not surprised that you are not contacted on any of these issues.​

My local spiritual assemblies have always been well informed about what I’ve been doing on the Internet, all the years that I’ve been posting about these issues. Do you seriously think that the counselors and the House of Justice have never been informed about it?

 

[George-ananda]

My local spiritual assemblies have always been well informed about what I’ve been doing on the Internet, all the years that I’ve been posting about these issues. Do you seriously think that the counselors and the House of Justice have never been informed about it?

Yes, I would suspect that the Universal House of Justice never heard of your personal activities and doesn’t involve itself at that level.

 

[Aupmanyav]

God is a foundational belief for Hinduism. Whether a person believes in god or not, it's still acknowledge that is part of the Hindu faith whether a person believes it exists or not.

Also, now that I think of it. Maybe Aup can clear this up. I think he's saying he doesn't believe in the incarnations. He does continuously talk about the nature of "god" or consciousness and distinctively challenges the circular and linear worldview of both eastern and abrahamic faiths. Whether he calls it god or not, is his view but that doesn't exclude that that belief (for lack of better words) is a huge core of Hindu faith and what all other parts of it are based on.

I will try to clear the confusion. There are three types of Supreme being (God, Brahman) in Hinduism.

1. A God who creates and interferes in the ways of the world (just like a Christian God), believe in existence of soul.
2. A God who creates but does not interfere in the ways of the world, remains aloof, believe in existence of soul.
3. A God who neither creates nor interferes in the ways of the world but just exist. No belief in existence of soul.

All three are acceptable in Hinduism. Also, Hindus can switch comfortably, without causing any line disturbance, from one type of God to another.

So, when a Hindu talks about God, you never know which type of God he \ she is talking about, unless the person clarifies - 'My God is like this'. Most Hindus believe in the first kind of God, say 75%. But these 75% would not restrict themselves to just one God but have thousands of God and Goddesses managing the enterprise happily and in unison, just like a big corporation, to help the Big Boss. Now the Big Boss can be different to different Hindus. It can be Shiva, Vishnu or the Mother Goddess Durga \ Shakti. That is left to a person's choice. That is the Saguna God. (God with attributes)

Some 24% will believe in the second type of God. That is the Nirguna God (God without any attribute). Nirguna is eternal, changeless, form-independent and uninvolved.

I am, fortunately or unfortunately, among the last about 1% who do not believe in existence of God, but of Brahman, which neither creates nor interferes in the ways of the world but just exist. Its existence itself is enough to create the illusion of the world that we experience. This Brahman has its attributes like the Nirguna Brahman, eternal, changeless, form-independent and uninvolved. It constitutes all things, living or non-living. So, even a stone is none other than Brahman. Total non-duality, no exceptions whatsoever. My kind of people will not believe in existence of soul.

The ways of the interfering Gods and Goddesses are easy to describe. More difficult is to describe a God who creates but does not interfere in the ways of the world, and the most difficult is to describe and understand a God who gives us the illusion of a world without creating or interfering with it. Hope this makes things a little clearer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, I would suspect that the Universal House of Justice never heard of your personal activities and doesn’t involve itself at that level.

I think the local Bahai counselors keep an eye on the doings of the members, and if adverse, report to the next higher authority, which then, if it considers suitable for the consideration of the House of justice, reports it. The House of Justice then takes the appropriate action including if that person is to be admonished or declared a 'covenant breaker' and all contact with him \ her is to be prohibited or not. That is what has happened in the Bahai world in the past.

 

[George-ananda]

I will try to clear the confusion. There are three types of Supreme being (God, Brahman) in Hinduism.

1. A God who creates and interferes in the ways of the world (just like a Christian God),
2. A God who creates but does not interfere in the ways of the world, remains aloof, and
3. A God who neither creates nor interferes in the ways of the world but just exist.
All three are acceptable in Hinduism.

.

What about?

4. Brahman of Advaita Vedanta who is the consciousness experiencing in all living entities

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I will try to clear the confusion. There are three types of Supreme being (God, Brahman) in Hinduism.

1. A God who creates and interferes in the ways of the world (just like a Christian God),
2. A God who creates but does not interfere in the ways of the world, remains aloof, and
3. A God who neither creates nor interferes in the ways of the world but just exist.
All three are acceptable in Hinduism.

So, when a Hindu talks about God, you never know which type of God he \ she is talking about, unless the person clarifies - 'My God is like this'. Most Hindus believe in the first kind of God, say 75%. But these 75% would not restrict themselves to just one God but have thousands of God and Goddeses managing the enterprise happily and in unison, just like a big corporation, to help the Big Boss. Now the Big Boss can be different to different Hindus. It can be Shiva, Vishnu or the Mother Goddess Durga \ Shakti. That is left to a person's choice. Some 24% will believe in the second type of God. I am, fortunately or unfortunately, among the last about 1% who believe that God - Brahman neither creates nor interferes in the ways of the world but just exist. Its existence itself is enough to create the illusion of the world that we experience.

The ways of the interfering Gods and Goddesses are easy to describe. More difficult is to describe a God who creates but does not interfere in the ways of the world, and the most difficult is to describe and understand a God who gives us the illusion of a world without creating or interfering with it. Also, other Hindus can switch comfortably, without causing any line disturbance, from one type of God to another (I am the exception, I do not shift my stance). Hope this makes things a little clearer.

Haha. Thanks for clarifaconfusing me. With the first god, like the christian god, what are the differences between the two in relation to their respective religious beliefs or practices?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What about?
4. Brahman of Advaita Vedanta who is the consciousness experiencing in all living entities

True. Your 4 is probably a sub-set of my 2. What do you think? Does the Universal Consciousness interfere in the ways of world or not?

 

[George-ananda]

True. Your 4 is sub-set of my 3.

Well mine sounds nothing like 3 to me. Brahman creates. The entire universe is a thought/form/play/drama of Brahman.

Brahman animates all living entities.

Your 3. sounds unimportant.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well mine sounds nothing like 3 to me. Brahman creates. The entire universe is a thought/form/play/drama of Brahman.

Ah! I understand a little. A game-loving, game-addict God.

So, 1 if it creates and interferes in the affairs of the world and 2 if it just creates but does not interfere in the ways of the world. I will like to know what kind of your Brahman is.

The Brahman idea is completely different from the idea of a God. I have used the word only for ease of comprehension. Brahman is not a being. It is 'all what exists', it is existence as well as non-existence. Only people familiar with Quantum Mechanics will understand it.

 

[Jim]

Well, I’ll summarize and say that the the official source writings and UHJ has to maintain 1.0. Too much of its fundamental sources say so . That said I certainly don’t think their prophetic vision of the future will ever come to pass so the 1.0’s will probably never be very important.

If I’m understanding you correctly, the Baha’i Faith that you’ve been discussing in these forums is not the current Baha’i Faith community, or any Baha’i community that could possibly ever exist outside the imaginations of some of its members?

 

[oldbadger]

I’ve publicly pronounced my atheism more than once in Internet discussions. The first time was more than two years ago. I’ve said publicly and repeatedly that I’m not sure that women will never be eligible for membership on the House of Justice, and that I’m not sure that there will never be another Guardian. I came out as queer on Facebook. I’ve publicly denounced Baha’is worshiping the House of Justice. I’ve said publicly that the there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing publicly with the House of Justice. For years I flaunted my friendship with some people who were denouncing the House of Justice. I’ve never been counseled against doing any of that, by any institutions.

If you are atheist, wobbling about UHJ authority, etc etc, it might just possibly be a good idea to look about for something more 'you'?

You haven't sounded (to me) like a Bahai for many months now.

 

[George-ananda]

If I’m understanding you correctly, the Baha’i Faith that you’ve been discussing in these forums is not the current Baha’i Faith community, or any Baha’i community that could possibly ever exist outside the imaginations of some of its members?

I’d say Baha’i 1.0 is the orthodoxy and the official Baha’i Faith. It has remained a small nucleus. Baha’i 2.0 is not going very far either but if either version helps its adherents to advance further spiritually then in that respect they are both positive versions.